Knight v. Commissioner, 552 U.S. 181 (2008)
Primary Holding
Investment advisory fees incurred by a trust are subject to the 2% floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions under the Internal Revenue Code, similar to individuals.
In the case of Knight v. Commissioner, the Supreme Court decided that investment advisory fees paid by a trust can only be deducted from taxable income if they exceed 2% of the trust's adjusted gross income, just like for individuals. This ruling is important because it establishes that trusts must follow the same deduction rules as individuals, which can affect how much tax they owe. If you are involved with a trust and are considering investment fees, this case is relevant because it clarifies how those fees can impact the trust's tax situation.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Knight v. Commissioner, the underlying dispute arose from the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) treatment of investment advisory fees incurred by the William L. Rudkin Testamentary Trust, which was managed by Michael J. Knight as trustee. The trust sought to deduct these investment advisory fees from its taxable income. However, the IRS contended that these fees were subject to a 2% floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions, as established by the Internal Revenue Code. The central question was whether the investment advisory fees, which are generally subject to this 2% floor for individuals, should similarly be subject to the same limitation when incurred by a trust. The procedural history of the case began when the IRS disallowed the trust's deduction of the investment advisory fees, leading to a Tax Court ruling in favor of the IRS. Knight appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld the Tax Court's ruling. Subsequently, Knight sought a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of the applicability of the 2% floor to investment advisory fees incurred by trusts. The relevant background context includes the legislative changes made by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which introduced the 2% floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions to reduce complexity and potential abuse in tax filings. Prior to this reform, taxpayers could deduct these expenses in full, leading to significant administrative challenges for the IRS. The law was designed to apply the same rules to both individuals and trusts, with specific exceptions for certain administrative costs incurred by trusts. This case ultimately sought to clarify the interpretation of these rules regarding the deductibility of investment advisory fees for trusts.
Whether investment advisory fees incurred by a trust are subject to the 2% floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions under the Internal Revenue Code.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- November 27, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Roberts
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
EC Term of Years Trust v. United States, 550 U.S. 429 (2007)
Consumer LostA trust cannot challenge an IRS levy on its property through a tax refund action if it has missed the statutory filing deadline for contesting the levy under 26 U.S.C. §7426(a)(1).
Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005)
Consumer LostWhen a litigant's recovery constitutes income, the portion of that recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee is included in the litigant's gross income under the Internal Revenue Code.
Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501 (2007)
Consumer LostThe Tax Court provides the exclusive forum for judicial review of a refusal to abate interest under §6404(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320 (2005)
Consumer LostIndividual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) can be exempted from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E), allowing debtors to retain these assets rather than having them divided among creditors.